I think the key to the answer is that we have sources written decades later by Christians committed to the idea of an empty tomb, so we don’t have other kinds of evidence — inlcluding any evidence that indicates *when* Christians started saying Jesus was raised (the third day? A week later? Later?) or *where* they started syaing it. The disciples had fled, presumably to return home, a hundred miles or so up in Galilee. When did word reach Jerusalem that some were saying jesus was raised? If he had been left to decompose on the cross and then tossed into a pit, how would anyone even be able to identify him, say, a month later — assuming they knew which pit? They didn’t keep records of such things. So it does indeed seem like a big problem, but once you get into the logistics of what we know, it’s not a very sizeable one after all, imo.

]]>
By: Eaglesjack https://ehrmanblog.org/an-easter-reflection-2018/comment-page-3/#comment-103431
Sun, 12 Apr 2020 15:21:13 +0000https://ehrmanblog.org/?p=15046#comment-103431]]>Dr. Ehrman:
Simple, but seemingly complex, question I had pondered with Jesus resurrection.. we have reasoned about the burial and body of other crucified criminals, and labored over the fact that some had an “experience” seeing Jesus after death… we know, to well, the different stories of Jesus at the tomb and those who claimed to have seen him in separate narratives.. but it dawned on me, recently… what happened to Jesus’ body? If there was a Roman dumping for the body or known disciples that buried him somewhere, wouldn’t that be enough for someone to challenge the tradition… however, we have this tradition that forms and seemingly no one saying “wait a minute, that didn’t happen that way…the Romans dumped him somewhere” or “so-and-so took his body and buried it here.” The empty tomb stays in tact, so does the character Joseph of Arimathea.. from a historical perspective, do we have any clue what may have happened to the body and how it was transformed into the burial/empty tomb narrative? If his death and burial was contrary to the narratives, wouldn’t someone have challenged it?? What, in antiquity, would have happened to his body and how did someone transition to a rich man’s tomb? Even more, why would all followers at the time believe that if it didn’t happen that way? I know the Gospels were written decades later. Paul doesn’t mention the tomb i.e… but what would the earliest followers have believed and would they even agree with the final narrative…? Thank you for considering the many questions. I apologize for the saying it was only “a question.” 🤯
]]>
By: Jon1 https://ehrmanblog.org/an-easter-reflection-2018/#comment-74866
Fri, 25 May 2018 14:27:13 +0000https://ehrmanblog.org/?p=15046#comment-74866In reply to Bart.

Bart,

Ok, I’ll drop this topic, but just one last related question. You keep saying “every source” says the *disciples* came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection because of a vision of Jesus. However, 1 Cor 5:5-7 and Mk 16:7 only say that Jesus “appeared”; they do not say that the appearance *caused* the belief. Can you please give one source before Matthew/Luke that says the *disciples* came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection because of a vision of Jesus? (Of course we know Paul believed because of a conversion vision.)

I’m saying they had a vision of Jesus. As fervent apocalypticists they believed that meant not that his spirit was visiting them, but that he had been physcially raised from the dead. Since he was not physically with them any longer, however, they concluded he had gone up to heaven (as dead people sometimes did in the ancient world).

I think we’ve covered this topic sufficiently now. Let’s move on to other issues.

I don’t think they thought this immediately after his death. They thought that he *meant* to be and that it didn’t work out. I think it was all about visions because in part because that’s what the actual evidence actually points to — including eevery source that talks about it, including one who actually had the vision, Paul.

One other quick question on your hallucination hypothesis. Are you saying that Jesus’ followers had *normal* post-mortem bereavement hallucinations from which they *concluded* Jesus was resurrected, or are you saying that Jesus’ followers had *abnormal* post-mortem bereavement hallucinations of Jesus alive in heavenly glory? If the latter, what made Jesus’ followers see Jesus alive in heavenly glory if they did not yet believe Jesus was raised? In other words, are you proposing some kind of *subconscious* process whereby Jesus’ followers concluded he was raised up to heaven *subconsciously*, and then this conclusion manifested itself consciously in the form of a vision of Jesus alive in heavenly glory?

Ok, I think I got it now. We both agree that, after Jesus’ death, it would have been much easier for Jesus’ followers (than for the followers of other messiahs) to conclude that Jesus never *intended* to be a military messiah when he was alive. However, we differ on the sequence of events after Jesus’ death. You think the sequence of causation was: cognitive dissonance due to Jesus’ death, bereavement hallucination, belief that Jesus was resurrected up to heaven and conscious rationalization that Jesus never intended to be a military messiah and that he will be back soon. I think the sequence of causation was: cognitive dissonance due to Jesus’ death, conscious rationalization that Jesus never intended to be a military messiah and that he will be back soon, Jewish beliefs about vindication of and reward for the righteous lead to resurrection belief, hallucinations of Jesus follow in the highly charged religious environment. The earliest evidence on appearances (1 Cor 5:5-7, Mk 16:7) does not tell us which sequence of causation is correct.

The question I have is: Why would you choose a bereavement hallucination to kick it all off instead of a rationalization? Bereavement hallucinations are easily dismissed as a figment of the imagination for those who do not believe in a spiritual afterlife, and those who do believe in a spiritual afterlife of some sort think these experiences are only the person’s *spirit* visiting, which would not lead to the resurrection belief. Why would you choose a bereavement hallucination to kick it all off instead of a rationalization?

No. Their views that Jesus was the messiah were radically and incontrovertibly shown to be wrong. That’s what caused the dissonance. It was resolved by their visions and their realization that he was a kind of messiah they had never thought of before.

Is there any evidence that the Jesus movement was an ecstatic cult before Jesus died? I was thinking that might help your hallucination hypothesis if Jesus’ followers were *already* used to receiving heavenly messages or participating in trance-like states where they might have had visions. Then when Jesus died, they might have had a vision that was much more spectacular than a regular post-mortem bereavement hallucination.